BioWare - Making LGBT Inclusive Games

August 6th, 2013, 12:22

That's fine, I am not a big David Gaider fan myself. But usually when I am sick of a particular topic, I just ignore it. Entering the discussion, pronouncing your displeasure with hearing about this topic again, however, indicates to me that you are making a statement, and just like adult David Gaider, you will not be surprised that people will react, eh?
I really think you have a weak point regarding your suggestion that talking may hurt more than it helps. If people respond negatively it's at least out in the open, something that can be responded to again. (That's what we are doing here after all, no?). I don't think that creates an issue, it just brings it to light. It may bring it to a point, but that is often necessary before you can move forward. And you simply can't solve issues that you keep under wraps.

Adding weak romances with weak characters in blueprint games are hardly going to do all that much, except perhaps make gay people feel better about something they shouldn't feel bad about it in the first place.

Why do you think you have any understanding of what they should feel bad about and what they shouldn't? Elikal here has already stated why it does matter to him, e.g.. I'm also not sure that the quality of the actual implementation of gay romance in Biowares games is relevant here?

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
That's fine, I am not a big David Gaider fan myself. But usually when I am sick of a particular topic, I just ignore it. Entering the discussion, pronouncing your displeasure with hearing about this topic again, however, indicates to me that you are making a statement, and just like adult David Gaider, you will not be surprised that people will react, eh?

Not at all, and I have no problem with you responding and making a statement of your own

I do have a little problem with you thinking that stating an opinion is necessarily advocating that others can't have theirs - but I can deal with it.

Sometimes I ignore these things and sometimes I don't. It depends on my mood.

Unlike entering a thread about a game and just saying: "game is crap" - I think responding to these constant repetitive statements is appropriate - and I don't think not agreeing with the approach is "reason enough" to ignore it.

I really think you have a weak point regarding your suggestion that talking may hurt more than it helps. If people respond negatively it's at least out in the open, something that can be responded to again. (That's what we are doing here after all, no?). I don't think that creates an issue, it just brings it to light. It may pring it to a point, but that is often necessary before you can move forward. And you simply can't solve issues that you keep under wraps.

That's ok - and maybe you're right. Personally, I think things change when you make sensible statements that are consistent and relevant, and people actually listen.

If you're so obsessed with promoting gay rights that you see "anti-gay" attitudes in people who don't have them - you're actively hurting your cause, as you're not dealing with reality.

But that's me - and we don't have to agree about that.

Why do you think you have any understanding of what they should feel bad about and what they shouldn't? Elikal here has already stated why it does matter to him, e.g.. I'm also not sure that the quality of the actual implementation of gay romance in Biowares games is relevant here?

I believe I have a pretty good understanding of human nature - and one thing I'm very certain about is that it's not helpful to feel bad about something that's beyond your control and that you can't change.

I think being gay is something you should just accept and I think it's very healthy to do so - and I don't think it's the right way to approach such an issue to add a gay character "just because", which is really how I see a character like Anders or Zevran.

If you're going to add a gay character, then I think what I always think about characters - and that's that they should be plausible and believable given the setting. Which is something Bioware suck at creating.

DArtagnan

I can't know Gaiders or Biowares motivation. Maybe it is "just because" maybe it is marketing, maybe it's an honest motivation - either way it clearly struck a chord with the LGBT crowd (most of which I assume have certainly accepted what they are, I don't think thats the issue), and that sparked a counterreaction, and then some people noted from a higher perspective, that indeed, it's unusual to have gay characters, much less positively written gay romance in games, and why is that so? That's why we see this discussion now. It seems a good thing to me.
Anyway my original point (more a reply than a point anyway) was just that I am not convinced that it's really Gaider or Bioware deliberately pushing it - maybe they are, but they also happened to have touched on a topic that some people care about, and that even more have an emotional reaction to (positive or negative). And that caused press, GLBT communities etc. to seek them out on this topic. That games spar discussion with societal relevance happens rarely enough, and so I think these news do have a place on our site as well.

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
I can't know Gaiders or Biowares motivation. Maybe it is "just because" maybe it is marketing, maybe it's an honest motivation - either way it clearly struck a chord with the LGBT crowd (most of which I assume have certainly accepted what they are, I don't think thats the issue), and that sparked a counterreaction, and then some people noted from a higher perspective, that indeed, it's unusual to have gay characters, much less positively written gay romance in games, and why is that so? That's why we see this discussion now. It seems a good thing to me.

Actually, I don't think that many of LGBT crowd have truly accepted what they are - which is very much part of my point.

But that's another story.

As for gay characters in games - I don't see the interesting or good part, myself - unless they're handled with plausibility. But that's how I feel about all human characters.

I like to keep concepts logically consistent and separate. If we're talking about gay people - let's talk about gay people. Let's not add gaming and make games about that - at least not to the extent they're doing.

But that's just me and nothing more.

Anyway my original point (more a reply than a point anyway) was just that I am not convinced that it's really Gaider or Bioware deliberately pushing it - maybe they are, but they also happened to have touched on a topic that some people care about, and that even more have an emotional reaction to (positive or negative). And that caused press, GLBT communities etc. to seek them out on this topic. That games spar discussion with societal relevance happens rarely enough, and so I think these news do have a place on our site as well.

I think I've been through this a few times.

I definitely think Gaider is pushing it deliberately - unless he's a complete moron, which I doubt.

As for having a place on our site - sure, I'm not one to stand in the way of such things. Not that I see much game-related material in that article - but I'm ok with not being anal about relevance.

I do, however, think it's ok to disagree with how Gaider is handling this - and it's no surprise that I'm not a big fan of "ignoring" things I disagree with. I know you think that's how to go about it - and that's ok too

DArtagnan

Well I guess we are at the point where we have successfully established the differences in our opinions. I'll just addwith regards to this:

If we're talking about gay people - let's talk about gay people. Let's not add gaming and make games about that - at least not to the extent they're doing.

that I think games and gaming are an aspect of life and culture like many other media. So yeah, if there is an interest, let's talk about gay characters in gaming, and yeah, they or someone else should make games with that, or even about that.
And sure, it's OK to disagree with how Gaider is handling it. But that's a different discussion yet again.

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
Well I guess we are at the point where we have successfully established the differences in our opinions. I'll just addwith regards to this:

that I think games and gaming are an aspect of life and culture like many other media. So yeah, if there is an interest, let's talk about gay characters in gaming, and yeah, they or someone else should make games with that, or even about that.
And sure, it's OK to disagree with how Gaider is handling it. But that's a different discussion yet again.

I think the differences in our opinions - when it comes to this particular topic - is the EXTENT to which we think it's relevant and helpful to involve gay issues in gaming.

Again, I'm one of those people who thinks that if you're going to add a character to a game - and you're going to make a statement through that character - you should create a plausible character, because then the statement will be much more profound and relevant.

That said, I'm fully aware that a lot of people prefer fantasy versions of people - and fairy tale concepts of good and evil, positive and negative.

That's cool - just as long as you're obviously creating a fantasy instead of reality.

My problem with Bioware in this case, is that they SEEM to want to make statements about reality - and yet their dialogue is so far removed from it, that I actually think they're creating a false image and that will only serve to create a greater gap between gays and non-gays.

This is how I feel about most fantasy images of today. Like unhealthy models looking like something from a concentration camp, and Hollywood stars looking like they were perfected in Photoshop.

They're talking about a very real and obviously serious issue - like discrimination - and they're not talking truth.

Bioware has a very implausible take on the human mind, if they think their characters relate to anything in the real world.

That's not how to go about dealing with these issues - if you ask me.

Beyond that, I think the focus in any game should be to make the best game you can - and if you're going to be making politically correct statements - then at least make a game worth playing to sell that message

If you really, really want to make your business into a blueprint factory - then at least do us the favor and stop preaching with nauseating over-the-top-characters whilst being delusional enough to think you're helping real people with real issues.

Obviously, this is just my opinion and obviously you think Gaider IS helping a lot of people with his writing. Again, maybe he's making gay people feel better about themselves - but I don't think that's actually helping them in the long-term.

DArtagnan

Thats a discussion you'll have to have with a homosexual person - I really don't feel qualified to judge how relevant a gay person would consider the characters and the writing, etc. The sad thing is that there are to my knowledge hardly any other games that could be pointed to that have done it differently or better (that itself points to there being a problem again, imho).

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
Thats a discussion you'll have to have with a homosexual person - I really don't feel qualified to judge how relevant a gay person would consider the characters and the writing, etc. The sad thing is that there are to my knowledge hardly any other games that could be pointed to that have done it differently or better (that itself points to there being a problem again, imho).

Oh, I've spoken to people with all kinds of sexual preferences.

I don't agree I have to talk with a homosexual person - but that's because my understanding of the human mind involves realising that human nature doesn't differ all that significantly based on your sexuality.

Obviously, if you think "homosexuals" are very different from other human beings - then I appreciate your position.

I consider sexuality a trivial difference that's hardly worth talking about. Clearly, you and a LOT of other people disagree.

You're right - most writing in games sucks - and that especially goes for plausible human beings.

When it comes to RPGs - that are typically fantasy-based, it's even more rare to see well-written human beings.

DArtagnan

Not very different, but it's obvious that someone who is part of that minority and has actually sought out these romances and dialogue options that we are talking about is better qualified to talk about it.
And yes, we disagree on the importance of sexuality, but we know that from previous discussions already.

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
Not very different, but it's obvious that someone who is part of that minority and has actually sought out these romances and dialogue otions that we are talking about is better qualified to talk about it.
And yes, we disagree on the importance of sexuality, but we know that from previous discussions already.

I can't see how a homosexual experiencing Bioware writing is better qualified to to talk about Bioware writing.

Certainly not "better qualified" to the extent that I can't have an informed opinion about it without talking to a homosexual first.

I've had more than enough exposure to Zevran and Anders to realise it's awful writing.

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
That's not what I said (or tried to say). I said I have not played these gay romance parts, nor am I part of the minority they are supposedly written for, so I don't feel qualified to comment.

(That you always feel qualified to comment is not really coming as a suprise )

Well, you said I should talk to a homosexual as a response to what I wrote about Bioware writing and human nature.

It's not like I'm looking for outside confirmation or justification for holding my opinion. I've worked quite hard at arriving at my conclusions already - and starting over because you don't feel competent to comment is not my intention.

I'm not asking you to comment on things you don't understand, as that would be a silly request

DArtagnan

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Well, you said I should talk to a homosexual as a response to what I wrote about Bioware writing and human nature.

I didn't mean "you should!" just that to have further discussion such a person would make more sense. If you're not interested in hearing from the people this actually concerns, that's your prerogative.

It's not like I'm looking for outside confirmation or justification for holding my opinion.

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
I didn't mean "you should!" just that to have furhter discussion such a person would make more sense. If you're not interested in hearing from the people this actually concerns, that's your prerogative.

I was having an interesting discussion with someone that seemed to have a relatively strong opinion about these things, and which I honestly thought would consider himself competent to talk about human nature and the quality of Bioware writing.

But actively seeking outside input from a minority as if that minority understood our nature better than other people is not within my area of interest.

Never!

Well, I see your point.

The interesting thing is that people who claim to not feel competent enough to comment, strangely enough tend to feel confident enough to comment on the confidence of others.

As in: "I don't feel comfortable talking about this, so this guy talking about it shouldn't feel confident either. At the very least, I'm certainly going to question his confidence - because it's not likely he knows what he's talking about - since I don't."

So, if you were REALLY not feeling confident enough to comment, you'd probably entertain the possibility that I actually knew what I was talking about.

Maybe you just feel comfortable not talking about your actual opinions - but if you think you can convince me that you don't have them or that you're not qualified to speak about them - that's not going to happen

DArtagnan

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I think the differences in our opinions - when it comes to this particular topic - is the EXTENT to which we think it's relevant and helpful to involve gay issues in gaming.

I look at it this way:
- Jackie Robinson in baseball is held up as a huge step in the evolution of racial civil rights - and not jut in sports.
- The picture of Kathrine Switzer running the Boston Marathon with the organizer chasing her trying to yank her out of the race was considered one of the fundamental moments of women in sports, and of the equality of women in general.

These are just sports, yet they were hugely influential moments. Gaming is a massive cultural element, so the ability to have the possibility for the normal range of relationships existing without it being notable is actually a potentially important thing*.

* note that I don't disagree with you about game writing and human behavior in general.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I don't agree I have to talk with a homosexual person - but that's because my understanding of the human mind involves realising that human nature doesn't differ all that significantly based on your sexuality.

As for this - it isn't about sexual preference making people different, but making the 365/24/7 experience of BEING that person different.

We all possess varying degrees of empathy which is then impacted by our bias. But empathy is NOT experiential reality - in other words, you can empathize with being black in America, but since you are neither American nor black, you cannot speak authoritatively - or even remotely completely - about what that experience is like for someone.

You have a limited ability, based on the fact that while we can empathize broadly we can only BE ourselves. And honestly, saying 'you are tired of hearing' about something is as much a reminder of the limitations of empathy and the inability to experience someone else's reality as anything else.

Originally Posted by txa1265
I look at it this way:
- Jackie Robinson in baseball is held up as a huge step in the evolution of racial civil rights - and not jut in sports.
- The picture of Kathrine Switzer running the Boston Marathon with the organizer chasing her trying to yank her out of the race was considered one of the fundamental moments of women in sports, and of the equality of women in general.

These are just sports, yet they were hugely influential moments. Gaming is a massive cultural element, so the ability to have the possibility for the normal range of relationships existing without it being notable is actually a potentially important thing*.

* note that I don't disagree with you about game writing and human behavior in general.

As hugely influential as they may have been - I have no idea what they are.

They sound like real people doing real things, however.

As for this - it isn't about sexual preference making people different, but making the 365/24/7 experience of BEING that person different.

Differences can be about the internal as well as the external - and the internal is not necessarily due to the external.

We all possess varying degrees of empathy which is then impacted by our bias. But empathy is NOT experiential reality - in other words, you can empathize with being black in America, but since you are neither American nor black, you cannot speak authoritatively - or even remotely completely - about what that experience is like for someone.

I can speak about human nature and the nature of ignorance. I don't have to actually experience racism to understand how racism works and how to combat it most efficiently.

You're not black yourself - and yet you feel qualified to tell people that they can't understand what being black is like.

That sounds like emotionally charged bullshit that has no basis in rationality.

You're saying that human beings can't or shouldn't talk about things they haven't experienced themselves - which means there's going to be no way to EVER solve the issue with racism. Because the people in charge of trying to solve it is…. everyone in the world.

We ALL have a say in this - and our opinions can be very, very valuable without having been exposed to racism ourselves.

You have a limited ability, based on the fact that while we can empathize broadly we can only BE ourselves. And honestly, saying 'you are tired of hearing' about something is as much a reminder of the limitations of empathy and the inability to experience someone else's reality as anything else.

You seem to be demonstrating a clear lack of empathy for me as well.

I'm not sure if your point is that being discriminating against me is better than me being discriminating against gays in your delusional position, but I don't agree.

I'm talking about being sick of hearing from Gaider, because I think he's going about his mission in life in a very inefficient way that's not about reality.

As for empathy - it doesn't work like you seem to think it works.

You can't evaluate the power of empathy in any given person by how he or she responds to something YOU, personally, empathise with.

DArtagnan

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
They sound like real people doing real things, however.

And that is a key issue that I tried to note, because while video games are key to youth society, they are not 'real' in the same way. The social impact is yet unproven.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Differences can be about the internal as well as the external - and the internal is not necessarily due to the external.

Absolutely true - there is some really cool neuro-psych research I was reading about recently looking at how internal and external factors and the juxtaposition of the two play into our overall brain development.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I can speak about human nature and the nature of ignorance. I don't have to actually experience racism to understand how racism works and how to combat it most efficiently.

Exactly - my point wasn't about what we can intellectualize and argue

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
You're not black yourself - and yet you feel qualified to tell people that they can't understand what being black is like.

That is a simple reality. You CANNOT *fully* understand the black American experience. That is (can't resist) an 'objective reality'. You can empathize, form mental behavioral models, interview millions of black Americans to formulate stochastic approximations. But they are all inherently limited.

But - to bring it into the context of the thread … ALL of them would be more complete and realistic than we are likely to see in a video game any time soon.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
You're saying that human beings can't or shouldn't talk about things they haven't experienced themselves.

Absolutely NOT - that is the OPPOSITE of what I am saying. I am the 'person of privilege here in the US - white, male, straight, Christian. Yet I speak strongly as an advocate for many in other groups. Yet I understand that for all of my advocacy and empathy there exists a fundamental limit.

As for Gaider - I get what you mean, and apologize for misunderstanding.

That is a simple reality. You CANNOT *fully* understand the black American experience. That is (can't resist) an 'objective reality'. You can empathize, form mental behavioral models, interview millions of black Americans to formulate stochastic approximations. But they are all inherently limited.

Your way of thinking is a real key to part of the problem, though.

You're talking about the "black American experience" as if being black was some kind of universal state that's unchanging.

Here's something about human beings:

We're all unique individuals.

You can't understand me any better than any other individual human being. You think some black kid from the projects is going to have the same experience as President Obama, growing up?

If you think someone who is black is harder to understand than it is to understand someone who is me - then you're very, very mistaken.

That's why I like to focus on understanding human nature - which is something we all share. You have to understand how we change according to our environment - and you have to understand how people interact - and how discrimination as a whole works.

You don't have to have black skin to understand that - and you don't have to have been to a real war to understand that it's not a very nice thing that we should try to avoid.

Absolutely NOT - that is the OPPOSITE of what I am saying. I am the 'person of privilege here in the US - white, male, straight, Christian. Yet I speak strongly as an advocate for many in other groups. Yet I understand that for all of my advocacy and empathy there exists a fundamental limit.

I can't take that seriously. As if all white, male, straight Christians were shiny happy people without very real and tangible problems.

That doesn't mean that racism isn't a real issue as well - but going around feeling shamed because other people are morons is harmful.

Empathy is an emotional reaction that's not inherently beneficial or positive. In fact, powerful empathy can lead to just as much harm as powerful hatred - or the absence of emotion.

Don't confuse empathy with doing the right thing - because the two couldn't be more different.